Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Do you think its possible that Philosophy can get too deep + mess people up instead of Helping them?
zenmyste
Veteran
I mean like , when a person starts their path on philosophy, they will enevitably start asking more and more questions, (some questions that may be 'unanswerable')
Then they start reading the likes of socrates and plato, then move off the greek and may end up looking at Buddhism and Taoism etc etc.. But then by this time, is there mind already 'more' messed up than it was before??
Does Philosophy open up doors to our mind that 'perhaps' not in a ''good'' way..
Could we be better off without Philospophy (in a way)
I obviously cannot talk for anyone else but here is ''my'' story (i hope you read it and you'll understand what im getting at)
'Before' i jumped on the so called 'spiritual path' - I was FINE.. yeh thats right ''FINE''
(did i suffer? erm, not really but ok, lets say if i did, i was able to suffer then not suffer more because of the suffering..
I just suffered like we all do in life, and then i would have got over it..
I have had people close die and yes i was down for a little while then was able to accept that 'this'is life and was able to quickly get over it.. and i was Happy and content..
HOWEVER; One day, a friend of mine gave me a BOOK on philosophy.. (years ago)
It had all the great thinkers of past and present.. I started reading and BOOM (to this day, i believe this is what opened the door to suffering - instead of actually removing suffering)
What happened was, the more i was reading, i needed to know more, and more and more, it was all mind blowng; reading what socrates thought, then plato, then epictetus, then suddenly i needed to always have another book then another then another, and soon i find ''myself'' wanting to understand ''mt truth'' - what is 'my' truth?
Do i really know me?
Who can help me know coz i didnt find the answers from plato or socrates.
then all this led me to Buddhism, then taoism, then self help books because i was 'looking' for answers to questions that my mind was asking 'because' that first book on philosophy got me ''thinking''
But my point is, 'before' i started ''thinking'' - i was FINE..
EVEN if i did suffer, i definitely didnt suffer as much as i do know ..
so what i am saying is before i got into 'philosophy/religion' - i was actually doing better....
And now it has been 'years' since reading that first book, and ill be honest, i always 'wish' i never read it..
because i wasnt a thinker - i just got on with life great.. But now ive become a 'deep' thinker..
Ive tried meditation, yoga, reading, practice, this and that etc etc... but i just want to GO BACK TO NORMAL.. lol
(it has always reminded me of a scene in the matrix, where one of the guys wants to go 'back' to the 'WORLD' before he took the PILL.. Some people will obviously say that is the delusional World, and NEO has awakened to the reality..
But jesus, i just want to LIVE.. and not worry about LIVING in reality or not..
(what if the so called delusion world is actually the REALITY world - but because people now think there is 'something' else to awaken to, this we see all around us is the matrix, and we all need to awaken to the truth)
Well what if all ''these'' people who think this, what if ''they'' are the deluded ones, and in actual fact, the enlightened people are just the ones who can ''get on with their mundane life''
yes their is suffering, but maybe this is just life - get on with it..
Perhaps having a practice to remove suffering isnt the way (for some at least)
My point is is (like the matrix then) is ther a way BACK for me??
I believe i was Happy-ier 'before' philosophy and religion came along!
(i still see the guy who gave me my first philosophy book)
hes older by 20 years, and i look at him and ask myself; ''do i want to be like you when im older??
The answer is ..... NOPE!!!
He seems LOST, where-as i wasnt LOST before he introduced me to ALL THIS..........
What are your opinions on this?
Then they start reading the likes of socrates and plato, then move off the greek and may end up looking at Buddhism and Taoism etc etc.. But then by this time, is there mind already 'more' messed up than it was before??
Does Philosophy open up doors to our mind that 'perhaps' not in a ''good'' way..
Could we be better off without Philospophy (in a way)
I obviously cannot talk for anyone else but here is ''my'' story (i hope you read it and you'll understand what im getting at)
'Before' i jumped on the so called 'spiritual path' - I was FINE.. yeh thats right ''FINE''
(did i suffer? erm, not really but ok, lets say if i did, i was able to suffer then not suffer more because of the suffering..
I just suffered like we all do in life, and then i would have got over it..
I have had people close die and yes i was down for a little while then was able to accept that 'this'is life and was able to quickly get over it.. and i was Happy and content..
HOWEVER; One day, a friend of mine gave me a BOOK on philosophy.. (years ago)
It had all the great thinkers of past and present.. I started reading and BOOM (to this day, i believe this is what opened the door to suffering - instead of actually removing suffering)
What happened was, the more i was reading, i needed to know more, and more and more, it was all mind blowng; reading what socrates thought, then plato, then epictetus, then suddenly i needed to always have another book then another then another, and soon i find ''myself'' wanting to understand ''mt truth'' - what is 'my' truth?
Do i really know me?
Who can help me know coz i didnt find the answers from plato or socrates.
then all this led me to Buddhism, then taoism, then self help books because i was 'looking' for answers to questions that my mind was asking 'because' that first book on philosophy got me ''thinking''
But my point is, 'before' i started ''thinking'' - i was FINE..
EVEN if i did suffer, i definitely didnt suffer as much as i do know ..
so what i am saying is before i got into 'philosophy/religion' - i was actually doing better....
And now it has been 'years' since reading that first book, and ill be honest, i always 'wish' i never read it..
because i wasnt a thinker - i just got on with life great.. But now ive become a 'deep' thinker..
Ive tried meditation, yoga, reading, practice, this and that etc etc... but i just want to GO BACK TO NORMAL.. lol
(it has always reminded me of a scene in the matrix, where one of the guys wants to go 'back' to the 'WORLD' before he took the PILL.. Some people will obviously say that is the delusional World, and NEO has awakened to the reality..
But jesus, i just want to LIVE.. and not worry about LIVING in reality or not..
(what if the so called delusion world is actually the REALITY world - but because people now think there is 'something' else to awaken to, this we see all around us is the matrix, and we all need to awaken to the truth)
Well what if all ''these'' people who think this, what if ''they'' are the deluded ones, and in actual fact, the enlightened people are just the ones who can ''get on with their mundane life''
yes their is suffering, but maybe this is just life - get on with it..
Perhaps having a practice to remove suffering isnt the way (for some at least)
My point is is (like the matrix then) is ther a way BACK for me??
I believe i was Happy-ier 'before' philosophy and religion came along!
(i still see the guy who gave me my first philosophy book)
hes older by 20 years, and i look at him and ask myself; ''do i want to be like you when im older??
The answer is ..... NOPE!!!
He seems LOST, where-as i wasnt LOST before he introduced me to ALL THIS..........
What are your opinions on this?
1
Comments
there is no escape . . . [manic laughter]
It sounds to me more like an issue with your overall relationship with life.
I suppose there was a day when you didn't consider academic philosophy - at the time there was something that drove you to examine your reality - upon examining it further, you are not content with the examination or results - you seek to blame the examination process?
In which case, you've seen without the benefit of philosophy and you claim you were content and with the benefit of philosophy you can retrospectively see your contentment - so next time you are close to a philisophical consideration hold on to the realisation that 'philosophy just makes me unhappy and I know that' and leave the 'deep' thinking and do what you did before discovering academic philosophy.
Or you may discover that philosophy just showed you alternatives - it is the alternatives that you cannot stomach - the responsibility that falls to you after you realise no-one has the answer but you and the results will be evident in your day to day existance...
Maybe that's why they say 'ignorance is bliss'...
but it isnt - ignorance is ignorance is ignorance.
I've always been a thinker, and it has led to plenty of suffering in my life. Finding a path and sticking to it and getting to understanding it a little at a time has helped my thinking mind very much, so my experience was the opposite of yours. But the times I was searching for a path to follow were the worst, for the reason I explained in my first paragraph.
Why? Each of us, inside, thinks uniquely.
I also remember vividly how I picked up that one book and the crazy mental journey that set me on. I got very seriously confused as I became trapped in the stream of (other people's) ideas. I lost touch with life more and more, as all of my life force moved into my head.
Since then, I've become disillusioned with the realm of ideas. I've come to view philosophy as fundamentally illusory, as an escape from the here and now of our lives, a futile attempt to explain the unexplainable. I still think it's beautiful in a way but I do not believe there's fulfillment there-- it's all just a big distraction from this body, this moment, this life.
As for Buddhism, for me it is neither religion nor philosophy. It's about practice and about doing. The practice is to let all that thinking happen but see it as insubstantial, just another process of the body-- like eating or sleeping. Thinking is a vital tool to have for survival but it seems like we, especially in these modern times, have made it into a god. So the Buddhist practice seems to offer an opportunity to find a still point within from which thinking can be seen and used without it beating us up and, most importantly, without making us miserable.
Is there a way back for you? I don't know but for me there wasn't. I've completely given up on philosophy and religion but my past preoccupation with them has affected me thoroughly. It is by seeing the torture that is fighting with intellectual answers to "eternal questions", that I've arrived at meditation and Buddhism. But you might arrive at something altogether different and only you can decide what that'll be.
If you do want to give meditation and Buddhism a chance, I strongly recommend finding a group of people to do it with (a "sangha"). Being alone, stuck in "smart" books, can be very unhealthy and miserable-- at least it was for me. Interacting with live people makes all the difference in the world. They call us "social animals" for a very, very good reason. Also, doing something with the body (sports, demanding hike, physical work) can lessen the hurricane in the brain and help one find some balance. But by all means, what helps me is moving beyond thinking and reading alone.
Good luck!
(it is your view
problem is whether it is Right View or it is Wrong View)
if you were really happy you wouldn't go for 'this and that offered by others'
so you didn't have Right View then
evennow you want other's openion, that means still you do not have Right View you see his outer apearance
how do you know his mental states?
do not judge by others by their outer apearance
most of the time outer apearance is misleading of course
even though you have read many Buddhist books and did meditation you still couldn't get the gist of Buddha's Teaching
but be happy!!!
you at a very good possition than many others
you know 'somehing' about Buddha's Teaching and 'something' about meditation
so
you know you have six sense bases within you namely, eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind
you know those six sense bases contact things outside of you namely, form, sound, smell, taste, touch and thought
Buddha says if there is no eye consciousnes even though you have eye within you and form outside there is no 'seeing' haapens
this is the same for other sense bases
so stop reading, stop thinking
but
try to experince
seeing. hearing, tasting, semelling, touching, and thought
you will be able go Back to you
and
you will find there is no " "
so that will not be anyone's openion or written material
you know what
It's exactly like Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. As soon as they tasted the fruit of knowledge, they had to be thrown out of the garden. No way back.
You can train yourself over years to let it go, but it'll pretty much always be there.
The best bet is to keep reading and trying and experiencing different ideas, and eventually you'll find one that fits you, and you can relax into it.
One of my philosophy PhD friends studied Wittgenstein, and decided philosophy was a just a game of words and language, and so he was able to get free that way... it became just a game to him he could pick up and put down.
Best wishes.
Yes.
Does a path of philosophy and spiritual seeking screw things up and make them 'worse' than they were before. Certainly. Is it an uphill slog? You bet. Holiness can't fix it and drugs can't fix it and holding your breath until you turn blue won't fix it. But you can fix it.
But with or without a "spiritual" format, settling things to your own satisfaction requires work. Generally speaking, the work is defined by attention and responsibility. It takes courage and patience and doubt. Bit by attentive bit, the clouds clear ... not overnight ... there is no Tooth Fairy. Things don't get better just because saints and sages and holy scriptures say they get better. They get better because you make them better ... and, in making them better, they become better.
Meditation is a good tool for putting a bouncing lifestyle to bed ... always jumping between joy and sorrow, good and bad, upset and calm. Meditation is not a fad. It is an exercise in sweat.
But there is no imperative in any of it. If you want to do it, do it. If you don't, don't. In either case, see what actually happens instead of imagining that things 'should' happen in one way or another. It isn't easy to be attentive and responsible, but then, if it were easy, everyone would do it.
Best wishes.
One question was 'Who can help me know coz i didnt find the answers from plato or socrates.'
No. Socrates does not do much explaining, and Plato never quite got to the bottom of things. It's really a question of reading the right books. The trick is to avoid authors who have no answers, which in the western tradition is virtually all of them. If you approach the topics via Democritus, Plato, Locke, Hume, Russell, Wittgenstein, Chalmers, McGinn and all the usual stars of western university courses then you will end up in intellectual chaos.
I would second the remark of Vinyl (ah how I miss vinyl)
'A philosophic background is essential, but so is the KISS principle'
The entire trick is to simplify, simplify and simplify again. Lao Tsu is the master. A complete philosophical explanation of reality can be derived from just his remark, 'true words seem paradoxical'. This is what Nagarjuna proves in his Fundamental Wisdom. Right there, in these four simple words, is the solution for all problems of philosophy.
I do like taoism very much (and zen)
And some times i feel great , relaxed, and 'happy'
But then, i slowly gind myself 'seeking' again!
Perhaps the answer is when i get this way , just read the 'tao te ching' again!
Always seems to sort me out! lol
So thankfully emptiness is taught and even emptiness of emptiness is taught. Thus freedom from views, thus freedom to assert views without clinging because the relative conventional truth is the only truth that we can assert.
Just keep this in mind. If someone asserts something that doesn't mean they deny anything else. The statement is only relative to the context and intention.
But then again you can take and interpret how you want to.
But I ask. How does one see if another is clinging to a view? And why is this relevant to the conversation? Or is this passive aggression?
Either way there are some ideas to chew on.
Good point I'll never state an opinion ever again.
@nevermind
Not sure what your metaphor is getting at, nor did I deny the function of language. All that was asserted is that when views are clung to then "philosophy" can bring suffering.
But the idea we should not have a view is daft. It is a view. To even begin to practice we must hold the view that the universe is such that there would be some point in doing so. We do not have to hold it dogmatically.
I feel the entire problem here is the assumption that philosophy is somehow at odds with truth. In fact philosophy refutes all extreme views, thus bolstering our practice and our confidence in the teachings. If, that is, we do not become trapped in the superficial complexity of the issues. At least one Zen patriarch was a good philosopher and seemed to think it worth considering philosophical issues. The Tao Te Ching is a philosophical text, and so is N's Fundamental Wisdom, so I really do not see why philosophy gets such a raw deal in much of Buddhism.
Of course, logical analysis is not a source of certain knowledge, but it does not claim to be. It is, at best, a logical proof of the Buddha's teachings and a way of explaining them to the intellect. Presumably this was the view of Nagarjuna and other Buddhist philosophers.
This business about not clinging to views has no bearing on the value of philosophising (it seem to me), and philosophers are usually better at not clinging to views than most people.
Being disturbed by a constant desire to answer philsophical questions is a nuisance, but it may not be such a bad thing if you keep going until you can answer them. No views need be clung to.
Sorry. I talk too much.
@Zenmyste - I think you will find that the book on philosophy you were given did not contain 'all the great thinkers from past to present'. If it had, you might not be in such confusion about it. This is the trouble, that people think they should read all the 'great' philosophers of the European and Greek past, when very few of them ever achieved an understanding of it, thus propogating the confusion from generation to generation. Nobody reads old scientists who failed to get anywhere, but somehow it's okay to fail in philosophy and does not stop one being considered great. Crazy.